At least some people are acknowledging that we have to try to do SOMETHING, not just throw up our hands and say “wrong place, wrong time.” I know gun enthusiasts hate liberal politicians who have been outspoken about gun control, but the other side is showing their coardice by remaining absolutely silent (“”Face the Nation” invited on politicians who oppose gun control, including representatives from the NRA, but they declined the program’s requests. “)not even a word of condolence

“Don’t just stand there, do something!” “When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout”. Your attitude explains why after Columbine schools started suspending kindergartners for pointing their gingers at each other and crying “bang bang!” Idiocy for the sake of appearing to do something is inexcusable.
“Not even a word of condolence”? That’s not true, as I suspect you know, but if you haven’t seen 2nd Amendment champions on the Sunday TV shows it’s because of their refusal to engage in the media circus presently going on. How do you compete for attention with a weeping, scared six-year-old being interviewed by ABC? Filthy exploiters all.

No call for Eric Holder to apologize for the hundreds of murders directly resulting from his planning, financing, and administering the delivery of over 2,000 Fast and Furious guns to Mexican drug cartels? American taxpayers paid for that program.

No call for Nidal Hasan to apologize for murdering American servicemen at Fort Hood, while shouting: “Allahu Akbar?”

The media suppressed the stories of Hasan; they outright refused to investigate Fast and Furious. That same media is going to drag this story out and keep it front and center for as long as possible. ABC already is planning a week long series of specials. This will be on the front page of the NYT for the next week.

LInkages are important. Barry Hussein Obama’s political career was launched by Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers recommended shooting school children to dramatize “the cause” and sway the American public. BIll Ayers advocated imprisoning and killing the 25 million American kulaks who would resist the imposition of his Marxist utopia. Anything to discuss or learn there?

Newtown, CT is the home of National Shooting Sports Foundatio (NSSF). Irrelevant coincidence, or important but subtle detail?

It’s so upsetting that one cannot even bring up the conversation of gun control without gun rights advocates shutting you out. No Reasonable person is suggesting repealing the 2nd amendment or magically removing all guns from US households. That will Never happen. For those who do own guns, is there anything you can agree to in an effort to increase safety? What about mandatory safety class before being issuesd a firearm? A federal standard for background checks? Do you not agree that there are some weapons that do not belong in a home? I realize that more laws wouldn’t have stopped this attack – these weapons were all legal and licensed. BUt what about the judgement of a person who keeps five firearms in the same home as an unstable person? Can we at least agree that there was an extreme lack of judgement at play here? You can’t legislate judgement, but I’m trying to find some common ground here.

Check your facts, CF. Around 40% of guns are sold without a background check per the gun show loophole,* thanks to the ardent opposition of the gun lobby and their minions (Democrat and Republican alike) in Congress.

*Except, of course, calling something a “loophole” when it allows 40% of what it’s supposed to protect to pass through is rather like saying the iceberg put a small puncture in the Titanic.

JRH – That 40% statistic is thrown around quite readily by the gun control types. Can you provide a source please? Not the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, some real bonafide government institution that has hard data. Even the CSGV does not provide a reference and just states it as if it is saying that the sky is blue.

In fact, what the CSGV states is “current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. ” Hmmm, that does not say anything about the gun shows loophole. That refers to sales between private citizens, not at gun shows. But still, that would be more than a million transactions and I would like to see some sourcing on that. Funny thing about facts, they can stop a meme dead in its tracks.

Seriously, JRH? Seriously?
Have you ever been to a gun show? The gunshow loophole is a myth. Purchasing a firearm at any gunshow table requires an NICS check. Although, there are private party sales, there is no way they comprise 40% of sales. Your 40% number is bovine feces.

According to the FBI, for the period Jan.1, 2012 to November 30, 2012, there were 17,684,618 indicating at least that many firearms sold (a single buyer for a single point of sale only has to have one check even if more than one firearm is purchased).

According to you and your 40% crapola, that puts the total firearm sales for the first 11 months of 2012 at 29,474,363, and your alleged number of private sales at 11,789,745 which is about the total number of gun sales in 2008 during the first Obama gun sales spike. Yes, Barry Soetoro has been the very best gun salesman in US history, but he ain’t that good.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows (they were only permitted to do business at the address listed on their license). That changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations. The ATF reports that between 50% and 75% of the vendors at gun shows possess a Federal Firearms License.

In 2005, Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of ATF, estimated that 5,000 gun shows take place each year in the United States. Most gun shows have 2,500 to 15,000 attendees over a two-day period.[1] The number of tables at a gun show varies from as few as fifty to as many as 2,000. At the largest gun shows, over 1,000 firearms are sold over two days.”

So, if we assume that each of the 5,000 show per year are “the largest”, then 5,000 × 1,000 is 5 million guns sales total. But that is less than a sixth of the stats Anon4:25 attributes to the BATFE. But we know that not all 5,000 shows are the big shows so the actual number of gun show sales is far less and the those without background checks is even far lower.

JRH, waiting for you on some stat from BATFE, FBI or some other government entity to back up you 40% are gun show loophole deals.

How about a response from the gun-rights advocates to RiR’s question here (or similar inquiries by other readers under the “Circus Begins” post), regarding the necessity of having ready access to assault rifles? That is one question that has been danced around–or just ignored–repeatedly. How come? Lack of a solid argument to the contrary?

It seems that home defense and target shooting are the “normal” applications of these AR-15 variants, such as the Bushmaster. Do these rifles, especially with an extended clip, offer that much more of an advantage in home defense over a handgun? Are there so many homeowners who have been forced to fend off entire bands of home invaders that access to assault rifles is essential? Is it as easy to sleep with an assault rifle under the pillow?

As for target shooting, maybe people can find some way to get their jollies besides obliterating pop bottles with high caliber rifle ammo. Or perhaps gun ranges can maintain reasonably sized (and highly secured) collections of assault rifles for loan to those enthusiasts who absolutely cannot do without.

Go back as many decades as you please. Name the episodes that have caused us to say, “Gee, I’m glad a private citizen with an assault rifle was able to step in, because otherwise that could have been a lot worse.”

The fact that the Constitution allows us access to assault rifles is not a sufficient argument. WHY do we need access to those weapons?

The fact that the First Amendment allows free speech is not a sufficient argument to justify the right of the press to provide nonstop coverage of horrible massacres like those in Colorado and Newtown. The crazies obviously are spurred on and incited by the fame that accrues to the killers and so they go out and commit their own atrocity in order to gain their share. The more the coverage, the more we see copycats do the same.

And what about that troublesome Fifth Amendment. How many murders, rapes and other acts of mayhem could we prevent if criminals weren’t allowed this protection?

Anamolous (is that intended or an autocorrection of mssipelled Anonymous?):

Nomenclature correction – a plastic or metal device for hod long rifle or pistol cartridges that is removable and reusable is a magazine, not a “clip”. A clip is a piece of steel that holds cartridges together and is intended to facilitate reloading. A clip is either not meant to be recycled (as in the M1 Garand) or is only used for reloading as with stripper clips. Please use “magazine” when discussing semiautomatic pistols and rifles, excepting the M1 and other WW2 rifles.

As for need for assault rifles, semiautomatic loading rifles have always had a role in hunting. Browning and others gphave offered them through the years. Eugene Stoner introduced the modular and simplified concept rifle first as the AR10 in 308 Winchester followed by the AR15 in 223. The military adopted the AR15 as the M16 in select fire and deployed it with mixed results in Viet Nam. When mid Westerners returned from VN they realized that the AR platform was an excellent varmint hunting platform, especially its ability to allow quick follow up shots if they missed a coyote or for multiple shots at several prairie dogs.

The AR platform, labeled “assault rifle” by the gun control crowd, has been adopted in various calipers to taking all manner of game from the lowly varmint two some of the largest game in Africa. More accurately called a “modern sporting rifle”, the Stoner originated platform has proved to be highly accurate, light weight, easily accessorized and fun to shoot. That last bit is because the recoil is moderated by its design making it even enjoyable to shoot for women and small framed men.

Regarding defensive applications, an AR in 223 is a more suitable home defense weapon that a handgun in most people’s hands. The major worry in home defense is being able to get bullets where they need to be and keeping them from. Where they do not need o be. While a handgun is easier to move around with, they are inherently less accurate in the hands of a user undergoing stress, elevated heartbeat and breathing. The short barrels of handguns (3-5″) mean a large shimmy factor in hands that are shaking due to adrenaline. A longer 14.5-16″ AR barrel means less shimmy in the muzzle and bullets more likey to get where the muzzle is pointed.

The flip side to that is what happens to bullets that will not hit e intended target. Then can penetrate the walls behind the assailant and enter the next room. Or go through a window and exit the house. The diminutive 223 bullet is actually easily deflected or crushed and is not likey to over penetrate. Unlike fully power rounds or full metal jacket in 9mm, 40 or 45, a 223 bullet will breakup if it hits a 2×4 whereas the larger and heavier pistol rounds are more likely to emerge more or less intact, and lethal. In fact, studies show a hollow point 223 round from an AR to be a more effective home defense round that buckshot from a 12 gauge shotgun given the propensity of buck pellets to pass though almost anything.

As for fending off hoards of home invaders, a concept you mock, keep in mind that the recently arrested crew who hit Round Hill Road were a trio of armed professionals who wore body armor when they hit a house. Sorry, but a 38 caliber revolver or a 380 auto pocket pistol would be of no use against those guys.

You final comment about historical perspective show a stunning level of ignorance on the dynamics of actual home invasions and defense. Simply to be smug when you have never been a victim but put into a deadly situation and you would take the biggest, bidet fastest firing weapon you could have at that exact moment.

G-u-n is how liberals misspell e-v-i-l. Gun control is how liberals avoid talking about evil while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.

The liberal obsession with gun control is really an obsession with human agency. It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees imply.

The gun issue is the narrative. It’s not about death or children; it’s about control. It’s about confusing object and subject. It’s about guns that shoot people and people that are irrevocably tugged into pulling the trigger because society failed them, corporations programmed them and not enough kindly souls told them that they loved them.

Mostly it’s about people who are sheltered from the realities of human nature trying to build a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing unicorns on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.

After every shooting there are more zero tolerance policies in schools that crack down on everything from eight-year olds making POW POW gestures with their fingers to honor students bringing Tylenol and pocket knives to school. And then another shooting happens and then another one and they wouldn’t happen if we just had more zero tolerance policies for everyone and everything.

But evil just can’t be controlled. Not with the sort of zero tolerance policies that confuse object with subject, which ban pocket knives and finger shootings to prevent real shootings. That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more school shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.
But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about controlling when they happen. It’s about making sure that everyone who has a gun is in some kind of chain of command. It’s about the belief that the problem isn’t evil, but agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.

Gun control will not really control guns, but it will give the illusion of controlling people, and even when it fails those in authority will be able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

The clamor for gun control is the cry of sheltered utopians believing that evil is a substance as finite as guns, and that getting rid of one will also get rid of the other.

People do kill people and the only way to stop people from killing people is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.

The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of, it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control … Moral agency is individual, it can’t be outsourced and certainly not to government

An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control. Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their lords to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the agency of the killer in being free to kill, rather than their own lack of agency for being unable to stop him.

There is no denying the shortcomings of various amendments, whether the argument concerns protections that are allowed or that are not allowed. People take liberties with their liberties and hope that the courts give a big thumbs up if a challenge ever arises. It doesn’t necessarily make it right, but that’s how the system currently works. You know that as well as anyone.

My point is that if asked “Why should you be allowed to possess X firearm?” a significant portion of the population will respond simply “Because the 2nd Amendment says I can.” That’s not sufficient in my opinion, particularly when it comes to semiautomatic “modern sporting rifles,” or their fully automatic counterparts.

-“Pop, can I go to the movies?”
-“No.”
-“Why not?”
-“Because I said so.”
-“Oh, OK. I understand now.”

-“Why can’t I make this even exchange of items?”
-“Because that’s our store policy.”
-“Oh, OK. That explains it then.”

Anonymous @ 7:55
I didn’t realize that there are fire insurance policies that actually prevent fires from occurring. What’s the premium on one of those, and can you give me the name of your agent so that I can get on board?

Fire insurance will help me rebuild AFTER the fact. Ideally, firefighters (and perhaps my garden hose in a pinch) could help me avoid having to rebuild in the first place. They are indeed quite good enough for me. Just as a handgun should be when it comes to home defense.

We don’t routinely call in the Smokejumpers and Forestry Service water tankers to douse an isolated house fire. Why not? Don’t those resources offer more fire extinguishing potential than the alternatives? But we must have access to combat rifles for recreation, right?

If my ignorance is indeed so vast, then you should have no problem citing the presumably numerous instances throughout our history—recent or otherwise—in which a person was able to stave off harm to his fellow citizens in a PUBLIC setting through the use of a “modern sporting rifle.” You need to review my comment. I didn’t question “the dynamics of actual home invasions and defense.”

But let’s go down that road if it helps you make your argument. Cite some instances in which a homeowner saved life and limb SPECIFICALLY because he possessed a “modern sporting rifle” instead of a handgun. I’m open to being educated.

There’s debate as to the exact role Meli played in neutralizing the Oregon mall shooter, but as you yourself detailed elsewhere, this was a person who was armed with a mere handgun. So wasn’t that weapon sufficient in that case?

Anonymous @ 7:55 tried to draw a nonsensical parallel to house fires. How many house fires occur in this country every year compared to the number of home invasions? How about home invasions by multiple perpetrators? How about home invasions by multiple perpetrators who are wearing body armor?

I guess that as long as the possibility exists for a scenario to arise, no matter how remote that possibility may be, we should have access to an extreme means (“modern sporting rifles”) of dealing with said scenario, regardless of whatever other adequate measures (handguns) are available.

Within the last few weeks there was a discussion on this site about the deterrent properties of simply racking a shotgun. Others argued that a laser sight was even more persuasive in that regard. Whatever the case, is an intruder going to take the time to consider exactly what type of weapon it was that he just heard being loaded? I think that once your run-of-mill intruder becomes aware that an occupant is armed, that’s probably motivation enough to turn tail. If there’s a hit squad after me, then perhaps I have other lifestyle choices to review beyond rifle v. handgun.

And is it likely to matter to an intruder whether the spot on his chest is coming from a laser site that is mounted on a handgun instead of a rifle? Really?

And let’s talk about the extended and drum magazines that seem to be gaining popularity. How many varmints does the typical ranch hand dispatch in a given day? So many that he needs these extra large supplies of rounds? He can’t just pack a few extra standard magazines onto his four-wheeler? Or is he so poor a shot that he needs all those extra rounds, just in case? That’s a comforting thought.

How about at the shooting range? Is it so great an inconvenience for an enthusiast to reload during a session that they must have these larger reservoirs of ammunition? Please tell me, what is the practical application of an extended magazine or a drum magazine?

How about in the field? How did Theodore Roosevelt ever make it back from Africa with piddling lever-action Winchesters at his disposal?

Let’s put these questions out to any readers who are LEOs: What firearms do you keep in your home for protection? Why do you or do you not choose to have a “modern sporting rifle” on hand?

If these rifles are so fantastic, then why aren’t they standard issue for patrol officers?

The primary advantage that “modern sporting rifles” hold over handguns and other rifles that are not based on modern military platforms is overkill. And if every once in a while someone misappropriates one of these weapons to wipe out a couple of classrooms of grade schoolers, or shoot up a movie theater, then so be it. U-S-A! U-S-A!

Yes, how vast your ignorance may be is an open question since I have little evidence to go on other than what is here.

First, very Obama-esque of you putting up a false rhetorical narrative. I did not suggest that a AR platform has had any role is staving off an active shooter in a public setting by civilians. That is a case of you putting words into my mouth trying to set up a false narrative. If you must know, I am against open carry of any sort, handgun, shotgun or AR (allowed in one or more states actually). Open carry is obnoxious and puts fear into citizens that is neither warranted nor welcome. It also makes the carrier a potential target for assault by either LE or bad actors looking to score the weapon.

If you want to be educated on the role of firearms defending citizens, there are numerous sources the most concise being the Cato Institute’s “Tough Targets” white paper. I will not pull that out and quote it here for your enjoyment. If you want to be educated, see that or each edition of American Riflemen. I have no idea of what the distribution by firearm might be in those cases but feel free to go compile that is you are genuinely interested.

As for magazine capacity, while I own more than a few 30 round mags along with 10s, I see not civilian use for Surefires 60 or 100 round mags nor any of the drum mags that are out there. The SOLE use for such capacity is anti-personnel and that is not a use for civilian environments. But again, you set up a false narrative by combining my point about varmint shooters’ interests in the qualities of the AR platform and hi-cap mags. I never suggested that any varmint or other hunter would require any specific capacity mag. In fact, most hunters I know who use AR platforms for taking game use 10 rounders. The major exception would be those who are doing wild hog eradication where the dynamics of hog physiology suggest multiple hits might be required and/or multiple targets may be available in a given situation.

At the range, if you do not have a bipod, the height of a 30 round mag allows the AR to be reasonably steady while shooting. No, hi-cap mags are not needed at a range. However, if you are shooting steels or participating in a 2-gun or 3-gun competition, then they are handy.

And then there is your Teddy Roosevelt comment which again sets up a false point. While it is unprovable, I would be that TR would have been intrigued by the AR platform and certainly would have like to have the platform and hi-cap mags in his other endeavors where he carried firearms.

As for LEOs, I would like to hear from them as well because what you will find is that shotguns are increasingly being replaced in patrol cars by ARs. That is a phenomena that has been going on for a number of years for two main reasons. First, as the criminal element are increasingly better armed, the typical 12 ga pump shotgun no longer provides enough stand-off distance nor barrier penetrating firepower nor reload speed when dealing with bad buys with semi-auto handguns, sub guns and ARs themselves.

While this thread is probably past anyone’s continuing interest, I have to finish this because I realize I never gave the second reason vis-a-vis:

“As for LEOs, I would like to hear from them as well because what you will find is that shotguns are increasingly being replaced in patrol cars by ARs. That is a phenomena that has been going on for a number of years for two main reasons. First, as the criminal element are increasingly better armed….”

Second, since the early 2000s, police recruits have increasingly come to the academy with military experience including basic training and possible combat experience with the AR platform, either in the form of the older M16 or the new M4. Thus, there is a much lower learning curve and more familiarity.

I haven’t read anywhere if we know how the kid got ahold of his mother’s weapons, but yes, she should have gone to great lengths to keep them away from him. I suspect she did, but that’s beside the point. That being said, Chris is correct. We have mandatory safety classes and background checks already. And you’re correct – you can’t legislate judgement.

I think gun rights advocates get upset because people who plead for more gun control usually bring up laws we already have displaying how wholly ignorant they are of the debate.

I haven’t read anywhere that Adam was considered unstable. I read he has Asperger’s, was quietly brilliant and his mother was taking him to look at engineering schools for college. His former high school classmates say he was never bullied, that he preferred to be left alone. He was never in trouble. His mother gave up her career to be with him full-time, home-schooled him but to conclude from his actions that he was unstable is, IMO, wrong.

Mother and son went to target practice together. That was one way they could bond. Had for one moment the mother thought he was unstable, would she take him to shoot? I don’t think so.

EOS –
The mother warned the babysitter not to turn his back on the kid, not even to use the bathroom. That doesn’t raise an alarm by you? You don’t think the mother was concerned? You are kidding me, right?

He carried a black leather briefcase, while other kids used backpacks. He wouldn’t communicate, and was “in his own world”. At best the kid was very odd, like the Dude. At worst, he was a raving lunatic. Either choice would lead ANY responsible adult not to let this kid have access to an arsenal and teach him how to use it. He was burning himself with lighters. You don’t think that is a bit strange, and I sign you better be careful with this kid?

We may never know why he snapped, but I think it is obvious the Mother knew he was capable of it, and probably would. She just hoped he wouldn’t. And she hoped wrong.
Your Pal,
Walt

I’d forgotten the tidbit about the babysitter. And I didn’t know that Adam burned himself with lighters. I guess I should read more.

But, I still say one never knows who will snap when. There are alot of young girls who cut themselves or pierce their bodies all over. It doesn’t equate to becoming a mass murderer. And we don’t know yet if the mother DID have the guns locked and the kid knew the combination or how to pick the lock.

If I had a son or daughter who cut themselves, I would obviously get them clinical help. I wouldn’t ignore it, or buy them a Swiss Army Knife and play mumbley pegs with them to bond.

If I had guns, I would get them out of the house or keep them locked in a vault they can’t access. I would keep any poison and pills locked up as well. I would speak to their friends. If they didn’t have any, which was apparently the case of Adam, that would cause me real concern. You don’t find that REALLY odd? He had NO friends and couldn’t communicate. Even the Dude has a friend. This kid had obvious issues.

This lady knew she had a problem, but hoped for the best. Hope is not a strategy. If she had the guns locked, and he could access the key, it is the same as not having them locked. If she feared for her own safety, maybe one handgun, kept on your person at all times. The rest was irresponsible on the mother’s part. Taking him to a range to bond? If you don’t see how wrong that is, given what we know, you really are scaring me.

“Do you not agree that there are some weapons that do not belong in a home?” The advice you’re suggesting is what leaves people sitting there with nothing but a screw driver, when what they really need is a hammer.

‘London riots: police lose battle as lawlessness erupts
The police battle to enforce order on the streets of London collapsed completely last night as lawlessness spread to all corners of the capital.’

“Hundreds of thugs ran riot across the city, looting shops and setting fire to buildings and vehicles with police apparently powerless to stop them.

Dozens of other areas of the city were subject to attacks as the riots entered their third and most violent day.

For the first time the disorder spread to some of the city’s more affluent suburbs with Ealing, East Dulwich, Fulham and Notting Hill under attack…”

Dude –
Obviously, the only way to solve this is by massive government regulation and intervention. After all “they” know best, right?

As we all know, you have to start with the root cause of the problem. Which are the mental folks and the bad guys. So all criminals and people with mental issues need to be sterilized so they can’t procreate. This will take a long time to have any impact, but it’s a start. Anyone caught with an illegal handgun gets castrated and 10 years mandatory. The folks with mental issues need to lose the trigger finger. They are crazy anyway, so they won’t miss it. Plus we will be able to know who they are, and keep a better eye on them.

Next, everyone else gets a chip implanted in their brain. They start acting strange, we just zap them by activating the chip. We have the technology to do it, so why not use it?

No one can own a gun unless they are 21. What is the point of having a gun if you can’t get shit faced and shoot it off? Right?

All of our clothing should be made of Kevlar. You can’t congregate in groups larger than 5. No clips above 10 rounds. A rampage killing of less than 10 isn’t news worthy, so why not?

I know this won’t fix the problem, because you really can’t legislate this stuff, but we have to try, don’t we? Isn’t that what government is for? To protect us from ourselves?
Your Pal,
Walt

Personally, I’ve never really understood why anyone needs semi-automatic rifles at all, whether it be for home protection or hunting or whatever. Handguns and shotguns should suffice unless you’re going out to hunt packs of wolves or something. But that’s irrelevant. There are 300 million guns in the USA (at least) and they are here to stay, so we have to accept that it is what it is. The real issue is the person pulling the trigger.

Not because I’m a bleeding heart liberal (I’m not), but because it struck me that there must be thousands of parents in similar positions who just don’t know what to do with their kids and who worry that their kids might snap one day. The sudden build-up of anger must be terrifying for the parents involved, and as this mother notes there will come a day when she can’t control her son physically. So as others have noted, the real issue we have to figure out is what to do with people with mental illnesses. Only a “crazy” person would take a few guns and kill a bunch of 6 and 7 year olds, that must be patently obvious to everyone. So how do we protect society as a whole from the small minority amongst us who would like to do us harm using whatever weapons they can lay their hands on? Banning assault rifles won’t change the fact that there are nutters out there who want to kill people. You can’t lock people up just because you think there might be a chance they snap one day – we’d have millions of people locked up if that were the case. I don’t know the answer.

I would think that background checks should be mandatory IN ALL CASES – so that includes gun shows and private sales where they are currently not required, at least as far as I understand it (no doubt I will be corrected if i am wrong). At the end of the day, you can’t legislate good judgment, and if parents of disturbed children want to leave weapons lying around, there’s not much the government can do about it.

I’m proud of you for posting a reply that did not mention the societal scourge that is the iPhone. I can only imagine how difficult that must have been for you. I can’t help but wonder though, was your heart broken by an iPhone early adopter? Or do you just work for Samsung?

Raised in Riverside, the reason most gun control conversations get shut down comes from experience what strikes some people as “reasonable” strikes the other side as somewhere between “stark raving mad” and the “thin edge of the (BIG) wedge”.

Gun enthusiasts have seen time and time again, politicians says they want an inch and take a mile. Here and abroad, they have seen time and time again, horrid horrible incidents like Newtown by obvious madmen used to justify the the wholesale banning or obnoxious restrictions to millions of sane and decent owners. And, given the way the bans are implemented it was obvious that the idea was to take away weapons in toto eventually or sooner than later. Not a one time thing. And it ALWAYS starts with “we just want to ban X…and then X becomes Y, and Y , Z and pretty soon, toy gun are beyond the pale. Each time a small group of gun owners gets isolated and cut off.

So please pardon the paranoid seeming reactions but when you see the salami slice political technique used against your hobby/rights and the rare incidents used to justify sweeping legislation, and everywhere it inexorably leads to the same place, gun owners in the US have learned to not give ground easily.

And it’s ESPECIALLY so when things like Fast and Furious ( et al) looks like obvious operations by the government to raise the issue in a bad light and when things like Maj Nidal – which certainly seem like one thing – are treated like another.

It’s not aggressive paranoia when they ARE out to get you. When they have stated so, when their actions overt and covert clearly point in those directions, and when the facts are twisted in make one thing look like another or hidden.

Walt: OF COURSE IT’S ODD HE HAD NO FRIENDS! Of course I’d get any child help who was exhibiting dangerous behavior. But I still have to believe that this mother, the ONLY person in his life on a daily basis, knew him inside out and backwards. So let’s give her some credit and say she was in denial. That happens to parents. Maybe she couldn’t accept the fact that her son might never leave the home, might need her to be dependent upon for the rest of his life. Maybe she did everything she could think of. Who knows how many doctors she saw for him. Who knows what medications he was on. Who knows if he snapped for reasons completely unrelated to any of this. I contend you can’t draw a straight line from carrying a black leather briefcase and being a loner to shooting 28 people. You can’t.

You are correct. But you don’t leave an arsenal around that he can access. And teach him how to use it.
Only rational people should have access to guns. I think we agree on that. And this kid was clearly not rational. I think we agree on that. But this kid being in a house with an arsenal, and trained by his Mom how to use them is no issue as far as you are concerned?
I can’t follow nor agree with that logic. The fact she was in denial doesn’t mean she didn’t make a HUGE mistake. And paid dearly for it.

“Only rational people should have access guns”? Some anti-gun people would say that anyone owning a gun is by the nature of that purchase irrational. And clearly rational people go off half-cocked one day, for no apparent reason. Denial and depression often go hand in hand. Maybe the mother was depressed that her son was a loner, so odd. Maybe she thought that by taking him out to the range she could socialize him. She did so regularly with her landscaper, who spoke at length about being at the shooting range with Adam. The landscaper never said or intimated that Adam was so strange or so unstable that he thought it was a good idea to stop. And what about the people at the shooting range. They had to get to know Adam. They surely can detect unstable behavior. And they didn’t seem to stop mother and son from coming.

Face it, this was a crazy act. I think UNRELATED to the fact that the mother had an arsenal. He had his brother’s ID on him so perhaps he could of bought guns had his mother not owned any.

Your example – a daughter cutting herself. Would you leave knives or guns around? I am not saying this woman could ever envision her son killing 28 people. But he was odd. He was burning himself. Wouldn’t you not leave guns or knives around these people, if not only for the fear that they would kill themselves? That thought never entered her mind? Maybe not, because she probably had issues as well.
Your blindness to the mother having an arsenal around this kid really is staggering.

How can you say this was unrelated to his mother’s arsenal? Without the arsenal, you’ve just got crazy but no act. (Note that gun laws did prevent the shooter from purchasing a rifle several days before; when asked to submit to a background check, he left the store, deciding, apparently, to rely on the “unrelated” arsenal.)

The Columbine killers did not use any assault rifles but were incredibly “effective”. Handgun, a 9mm carbine that would not have been deemed a assault rifle under the 1994 AWB and two sawed off shotguns were their weapons. Plus an array of homemade bombs. At least one of the shotguns was over 30 years old and all their weapons were hidden under their trenchcoats at the time of the attacks.

For those of you supporting an assault weapon ban, how would that have impacted Columbine? The sawed off shotguns were so short they represented violations of the 1934 Federal Firearms Act – did that stop these shooters?

Separately, Illinois and Chicago are strictly handgun control jurisdictions yet Chicago and vicinity have some of the highest gun-related crime and homicide rates in the USA. How effective is the law there? Or in Washington DC or Baltimore or Compton or Newark? Why is it that the current laws can not be enforced in those cities.

Oh yeah, and the vast majority of gun-crime in this country is committed with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.

Two more thoughts. The shooter in the mall in Oregon was not the owners of his weapons, he stole them from someone else. So, not matter his qualifications to own firearms, it would not have prevented his actions.

One thing not being mentioned in the Oregon case it that an armed citizen may have interrupted the shooter and limited the amount of carnage done. You can read about that here:

But a bigger point is that these shootings take place in so-called “gun free” zones, places where lawfully permitted gun owners are told they can not bring weapons. Yet, while the citizens abide by those rules, the nutcases do not. The movie theater chain in Colorado was a “gun free” establishment. The mall in Oregon as well. The school in Newtown, as is every school. Even going back to Virginia Tech, all gun free zones where shooters know there will be no armed resistance. No matter the motivation, homicidal/suicidal mass murderers are on a mission and do not want to be impeded in their pursuits. Thus, they seek places know to be “gun free”.

So, other than making the anti-gun crowd feel good about “do something”, how effective is “gun free”?

Walt: what can I say. I’m a mother and my natural instinct is to feel her pain, to wonder what she was feeling and fretting about and how she was probably scared dealing with Adam without any input from the boys father and brother. I’ll continue to support her choices despite your alarm. The end.

You are wrong here Walt. I’m watching Katie Couric now and she has on people who lost family members at Columbine. One woman who lost her son said she asked to speak with the parents of the two shooters, who, she went on to say, were vilified in the press for not knowing their son was stockpiling weapons. The media wants someone to blame. You are trying to blame the mother too. Even one young family who lost a daughter at Sandy Hook spoke of forgiveness, of not allowing themselves to blame or have hatred toward Adam. The mother did what she could. Let it go at that.

Because it lacked any scatological references, I assumed it was fake Walt trying to abuse your name. I had no idea you could write a straight comment and although I’m disappointed to learn that about you, I’ll accommodate even those.

This Adam dude was bat shit crazy. Everybody knew it. But he didn’t hurt anybody. But he was self-mutilating, which is kind of a warning, me thinks. But I am not his Mommy. The person who knows him best. I can see he is bat shit crazy, that he can’t feel pain, burns himself, can’t communicate or look people in the eyes, has zero friends, carries a brief case to school, and is diagnosed as having assburgers. Who would eat that? But his Mommy, the person closest to him, couldn’t see that.

She has to home school him, he is in his own world, and plays violent video games until his fingers bleed. She has to tell the babysitter to NEVER turn their back on him.

So what does she do? I KNOW!! SHE NEEDS TO BOND WITH HIM!! So let’s go to a shooting range, one of the most solitary, individualistic activities one can engage in. With a child that has obvious mental problems. YEAH THAT’S THE TICKET!! Who wouldn’t think that is a good idea? But just in case someone does, let’s blame the absentee father.

Then, when she tell her friends “I am losing him” and she has a choice – either leave an arsenal out, in the house, or leave it somewhere this frigging loony bin can’t access it. And what does she do? SHE LEAVES IT IN THE HOUSE!! That is a choice I can defend. How about you, you frigging loser?

And by doing so, it had NOTHING to do with all these innocent people getting killed.
SOMEHOW!! SOMEHOW I HAVE TROUBLE BUYING THIS. This is a diversionary tactic of illogical libtard thinkers. If she followed existing laws, and secured the guns, the kid would probably have suffocated her with a pillow, than hung himself in the garage. Not a great outcome, but better than what happened. To defend the mothers “choices” is beyond moronic.

The laws in place, if followed, would have prevented this. More laws, taking away the freedoms of rational, law abiding citizens will not change that.
CLEAR?? Crystal. A FEW GOOD MEN DUDE!!
Your Pal,
Walt

-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981.

-Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police.”

I’ve never seen someone so upset that someone didn’t shoot somebody. The line from the “Lincoln Lawyer” movie is “You’re nobody ’till somebody shoots you” not “You’re nobody ’till you shoot somebody”. Go put on a good slasher movie: maybe that will quell your thirst for blood.

@ puiOG: How does the fairly minor change in details diminish the likelihood that the Oregon Shooter stopped his spree because he had seen Meli aim at him, (at least in part)? I’m guessing that it was a combination of the gun jamming on him and Meli’s presence there that influenced his retreat and self-destruction. But he had no way of knowing Meli wasn’t an LEO, and probably suspected that he was one, and that more were present and/or would soon be responding.

While I a little sadness for the shooters family on account of their loss, better that he destroy himself than any more people than he already had. Also better for Meli, both legally and spiritually, that he didn’t have to shoot.

No proof so far that the shooter even saw Meli. The shooter’s wearing a hockey-type mask and Meli can tell that the shooter saw him?
Hiding in a store, behind a column?

“Officers who’ve viewed security tapes said Roberts moved “pretty swiftly and deliberately.” Eyewitnesses saw him move to reload the rifle at least once, but it apparently jammed. Roberts had stolen the weapon that morning and might not have been familiar with how to use it. He dropped a fully loaded magazine on the mall floor outside Macy’s Home Store and pushed through a set of doors marked “Emergency Exit, mall employees only,” into a back storage corridor between the interiors store and Forever 21.”

No mention of Meli by officers there, and no indication he made a statement to police – either before leaving the mall or later.
Are the cops in on this lib coverup?

I smell a wannabe. If he was a volunteer fireman, I’d confiscate his Bic.

“Meli was first certified as an unarmed professional security guard by the Oregon Department of Public Safety, Standards and Training in 2010. Last June, he completed the additional 24 hours of training needed to be certified as an armed professional, including passing tests on shooting, safe gun handling and criminal and use-of-force laws, said Karen Evans, DPSST investigator.

She said Meli has worked as a security guard for Clackamas Town Center since June through Valor Security Services.”

“No proof so far that the shooter even saw Meli. The shooter’s wearing a hockey-type mask and Meli can tell that the shooter saw him?”

Even a cockroach knows when you’re looking at it, and any fool can tell when the cockroach knows it’s just been spotted.

“Officers who’ve viewed security tapes…”

That’s the problem, by the time the cops get there it’s always too late.

“I smell a wannabe. If he was a volunteer fireman…”

That’s what everyone said about Richard Jewell, who found the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. Turned out he was a real hero who got to eat sh*t for his efforts. You’re right pulled up, if anyone see trouble, just put your hands in your pockets start whistling and shuffling backwards. There’s nothing anyone can do, nothing to see here; just move along and leave it to the professionals to shoot innocent bystanders. I think we can all be glad that Mr. Meli did not share your sense of judgement.

No mention of Meli by officers there, and no indication he made a statement to police – either before leaving the mall or later.
Not surprising, given that the mall declared itself a gun-free zone. Why invite a charge of criminal trespass. Then again, Meli could be full of shit, and he wasn’t there at all. The only person who knew to a certainty whethjer or not Roberts saw Meli, was Roberts, and as far as I know, he ain’t talking.

Are the cops in on this lib coverup? Maybe, maybe not. Pretty sure I never used the word cover-up at any point.

Correlation/Causation? It’s not self defence until somone points a gun at you first. And you’d be wise not to shoot someone until you have to, and even wiser to not shoot anyone at all. You just can’t go around shooting people. Just showing a gun usually puts an end to violence: even sharks won’t attack if they think they might get hurt. In the right hands (trained, responsable citizens), guns save lives. How’s that for correlation/causation?

Sorry forgot to add that the guy with the rifle, especially if scoped, has a huge advantage at any distance over a handgun: Meli would have to have tried to advance on the shooter in order to stand a chance. If you’ve ever played paint ball, you would know that if he’d had some of his buds with him to lay down suppressing fire, he could have gained ground. But this wasn’t some game, and those were real bullets not paint balls.

The role the armed citizen plays in preventing or depressing crime is difficult to gauge because the data is so spotty. While the local police blotter may cover the story of the legally armed citizen preventing a crime, there is no central database of such events. Further, the Media will rarely cover it if the act of armed defense runs counter to the editorial narrative of that media organ. The NRA has such a column in each edition of “Americna Rifleman” bit that is about it.

Back in February, the Cator Institute published a white paper where they looked at eight years worth of data of what happens when armed citizens interact with criminals. You can find it here:

One interesting point they make is that there is a multiplier effect when criminals are incarcerated or killed in the act of committing a crime. That is, given most violent criminals are repeated offenders, taking one out of circulation presents all of their future crimes, thus multiplying the deterrent or defensive effect of the armed citizen. Now I know our gun control fellow readers will howl at that effect being beneficial, but it is a point that is difficult to dispute on its face.

This guy’s family KNEW he was nuts, tried to get him committed – and – couldn’t. My friend who got LUCKY and didn’t kill anyone when he was psycho and spraying bullets around SHOULD have been locked up PRIOR to his incident. We all knew he was dangerous and psychotic.

We can’t stop all these horrors. I’m betting, however, if some of these big time mentally disturbed individuals were locked up that some of the murders would be avoided……

Peg –
The problem is, how do you lock up these nut jobs before they do it? I wish you could but you can’t.

But you certainly don’t enable them, by teaching them how to shoot. And leaving an arsenal at their disposal, which EOS seems to think is a non-issue, and a mothers “choice”. So they can “bond”. That is beyond moronic.

You have to assess the price of freedom. And understand with freedom comes responsibility. Some will ignore that, and as a result, tragedy will occur. So we should give up freedom as a result? I think not.

Anyhows, I think we clearly need better gun laws. I would favor a ban on automatic weapons. But not a total assault on the right to bear arms. I do think if someone bearing arms shows signs of being unstable, their right to bear arms should be suspended, pending investigation.

I also think, when I visit Minnesota, to see all of its lovely snow piles, while freezing my frigging ass off, and forced to eat lute fish as my final meal, I would prefer a quick bullet to the head, rather than being stuffed balls first into a wood chipper. But that’s just me.

Walt – believe me, there are a few horribly sick people that you know must be locked up … and sometimes you get “lucky” and you do know before something like this happens. My buddy who had a bad reaction to a drug told me that his son had murdered people and they were buried under his highrise. He called people from his club at 3AM and told them people were trying to kill them.

This from a sixty something guy who went to prep schools and headed up the marketing department for years of a financial institution here…… Doesn’t THAT sound like someone who should be held and examined for a while?

Anyone remember this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
Cases were firearms are used to stop crimes are glossed over by the main stream media. Heck most of them don’t even know the difference between a semi-automatic, a machine gun or what select fire means. It was laughable to hear some of the media stumble over gun terminology. They keep talking about reenacting and “assault weapon” ban (There is no such thing as an assault weapon, it was a term coined by gun control advocates.) The press almost never mentioned we have a ban in CT which did nothing to stop this crime in a gun free school zone.

If I thought gun control would make a difference I would support some restrictions. This tragedy has hit close to home, my cousin is a 3rd grade teacher at Sandy Hook. Hopefully the outpouring of support will continue once this story leaves the front pages, it is a shattered community. Instead of going after guns why not the criminals – how about adding 10 years to any crime committed with a gun. Repealing ACLU backed laws that make it almost impossible to commit mentally ill people?